Lessons to Be Learned

doi:10.1017/9781108687867.010

8 - Lessons to Be Learned

A Professional Development Approach to Curriculum Planning in a Multilingual School in Galicia

from Part III - New Knowledge and Future Directions

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 July 2020

Xabier San Isidro and

David Lasagabaster

Edited by

Kim Bower ,

Do Coyle ,

Russell Cross and

Gary N. Chambers

Show author details

Kim Bower: Affiliation:
Sheffield Hallam University
Do Coyle: Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Russell Cross: Affiliation:
University of Melbourne
Gary N. Chambers: Affiliation:
University of Leeds

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter focuses on how integrated curriculum planning and implementation in a trilingual setting might provide useful insights for those working with CLIL, across what would appear to be very different and specific linguistic contexts including multilingual and Anglophone contexts. We draw on relevant lessons learned from a detailed longitudinal case study in Galicia to highlight key areas for consideration and analysis across different contexts. This experience emphasized four key factors that emerged from the study that we suggest are transferable to other linguistic contexts: training/professional learning for teachers, a literacies approach that facilitates pluriliteracies development, teacher collaboration where language and content teachers co-construct the CLIL curriculum together and implement their designs across CLIL lessons and ownership of CLIL pedagogies.

Keywords

curriculum planning trilingual setting professional learning literacies approach teacher collaboration

Type: Chapter
Information: Curriculum Integrated Language Teaching
CLIL in Practice
, pp. 145 - 164

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108687867.010 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., and Bloom, B. S. (eds.). (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing. Abridged ed. New York, NY: Longman-Pearson Education.Google Scholar

Barbero, T. (2012). ‘Assessment Tools and Practices in CLIL’, in Quartapelle, F. (ed.), Assessment and Evaluation in CLIL. Pavia, Italy: Ibis-Como, pp. 38–56.Google Scholar

Barreiro, I., and San Isidro, X. (2009). ‘Estudo: Perspectiva empírica sobre as aulas CLIL galegas’, in San Isidro, X. (ed.), CLIL: Integrando linguas “a través” do currículo. Santiago de Compostela, Spain: Consellería de Educación e Ordenación Universitaria, Xunta de Galicia, pp. 183–224.Google Scholar

Calvo, E., and San Isidro, X. (2012). ‘The Fusion Effect of CLIL on Language-Building and Content Learning: Research Study’, in Meyer, O. and Marsh, D. (eds.), Quality Interfaces: Examining Evidence & Exploring Solutions in CLIL. Eichstaett, Germany: Eichstaett Academic Press, pp. 122–135.Google Scholar

Cano, W. (2013). Manual CLIL para centros bilingües. Madrid: UNIR Ediciones.Google Scholar

Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge, UK: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.Google Scholar

Coyle, D. (2007). ‘Content Language Integrated Learning: Towards a Connected Research Agenda for CLIL Pedagogies’. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 543–562.CrossRef Google Scholar

Coyle, D. (2008). ‘CLIL – a Pedagogical Approach from the European Perspective’, in Van Deusen-Scholl, N. and Hornberger, N. H. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 97–111.Google Scholar

Coyle, D., Hood, P., and Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dalton-Puffer, C., and Smit, U. (2007). Empirical Perspectives on CLIL Classroom Discourse. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

De Coninck, C. (2008). Core Affairs: Flanders, Belgium: Case Studies Basic Education in Europe. Enschede, the Netherlands: SLO–Netherlands Institute Curriculum Development.Google Scholar

de España, G. (2013). Ley Orgánica 8/2013, de 9 de diciembre, para la mejora de la calidad educativa. Boletín Oficial del Estado, 295, 97858–97921.Google Scholar

Guillamón-Suesta, F., and Renau, M. L. (2015). ‘A Critical Vision of the CLIL Approach in Secondary Education: A Study in the Valencian Community in Spain’. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 8(1), 1–12.Google Scholar

Infante, D., Benvenuto, G., and Lastrucci, E. (2009). ‘The Effects of CLIL from the Perspective of Experienced Teachers’, in Marsh, D., Mehisto, P., Wolff, D., Aliaga, R., Asikainen, T., Frigols-Martín, M. J., Hughes, S., and Langé, G., (eds.) CLIL Practice: Perspectives from the Field. Jyväskylä, Finland: University of Jyväskylä, pp. 156–163.Google Scholar

Kelly, A. V. (1999). The Curriculum: Theory and Practice. 4th ed. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar

Lasagabaster, D. (2017). ‘Language Learning Motivation and Language Attitudes in Multilingual Spain from an International Perspective’. Modern Language Journal, 101(3), 583–596.Google Scholar

Lasagabaster, D., and Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2010). Spain: Implementation, Results and Teacher Training. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar

Macaro, E. (2018). English Medium Instruction: Content and Language in Policy and Practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Massler, U., Stotz, D., and Queisser, C. (2014). ‘Assessment Instruments for Primary CLIL: The Conceptualisation and Evaluation of Test Tasks’. Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 137–150.Google Scholar

McKernan, J. (2008). Curriculum and Imagination: Process Theory, Pedagogy and Action Research. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

Meyer, O., Coyle, D., Halbach, A., Schuck, K., and Ting, T. (2015). ‘A Pluriliteracies Approach to Content and Language Integrated Learning: Mapping Learner Progressions in Knowledge Construction and Meaning-Making’. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 41–57.Google Scholar

Paran, A. (2013). ‘Content and Language Integrated Learning: Panacea or Policy Borrowing Myth?’ Applied Linguistics Review, 4(2), 317–342.Google Scholar

Pavón, V., Ávila, J., Gallego, A., and Espejo, R. (2014). ‘Strategic and Organisational Considerations in Planning CLIL: A Study on the Coordination between Content and Language Teachers’. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(4), 1–17.Google Scholar

Pavón, V., and Rubio, F. (2010). ‘Teachers’ Concerns and Uncertainties about the Introduction of CLIL Programmes’. Porta Linguarum, 14(June), 45–58.Google Scholar

Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2018). ‘CLIL and Educational Level: A Longitudinal Study on the Impact of CLIL on Language Outcomes’. Porta Linguarum, 29(January), 51–70.Google Scholar

Priestly, M. (2019). ‘Curriculum: Concepts and Approaches’. Retrieved from https://mrpriestley.wordpress.com/2019/01/04/curriculum-concepts-and-approaches/.Google Scholar

Sahlberg, P. (2006). ‘Models of Curriculum Development: International Trends and the Way Forward’, in Sahlberg, P. (ed.), Curriculum Reform and Implementation in the 21st Century: Policies, Perspectives and Implementation, pp. 108–121.Google Scholar

San Isidro, X. (2010). ‘An Insight into Galician CLIL’, in Lasagabaster, D. and Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, Results and Teacher Training. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 55–78.Google Scholar

San Isidro, X. (2016). ‘AICLE: un viaje a HOTS’, in Herrera, F. (ed.), Enseñar español a niños y adolescentes. Barcelona, Spain: Difusión, pp. 67–78.Google Scholar

San Isidro, X. (2017). CLIL in a Multilingual Setting: A Longitudinal Study on Students, Families and Teachers. Doctoral thesis. Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain: University of the Basque Country.Google Scholar

San Isidro, X. (2018). ‘Innovations and Challenges in CLIL Implementation in Europe’. Theory into Practice, 57(3), 185–195.Google Scholar

San Isidro, X., and Lasagabaster, D. (2019). ‘The Impact of CLIL on Pluriliteracy Development and Content Learning in a Rural Multilingual Setting: A Longitudinal Study’. Language Teaching Research, 23(5), 584–602.CrossRef Google Scholar

San Isidro, X., and Lasagabaster, D. (2019). ‘Monitoring of Teachers’ Views on Both CLIL and the Development of Pluriliteracies: A Longitudinal Qualitative Study’. English Language Teaching, 12(2), 1–16.Google Scholar

Schwab, G. (2015). ‘Teaching Methods and Approaches: Looking into a Unique CLIL Classroom in Germany’, in Jenks, C. J. and Seedhouse, P. (eds.), International Perspectives on ELT Classroom Interaction. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 10–27.Google Scholar

Sierra, J. M. (2016). ‘Cooperative Projects in a CLIL Course: What Do Students Think?’, in Lasagabaster, D. and Doiz, A. (eds.), CLIL Experiences in Secondary and Tertiary Education: In Search of Good Practices. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang, pp. 69–97.Google Scholar

Stenhouse, L. (1975). An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London, UK: Heinemann.Google Scholar

Whittaker, R., Llinares, A., and McCabe, A. (2011). ‘Written Discourse Development in CLIL at Secondary School’. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 343–362.CrossRef Google Scholar

Book contents

8 - Lessons to Be Learned

Summary

Keywords

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive